Originally Posted by dbd33

If the objective is solely to reduce the count of deaths then, no, the shutdown is not worthwhile. I understand (from quality sources but underinformed sources) that half the people in intensive care survive when equipment is available. When equipment is not available them all without ventilators die. We can say that buying very many ventilators would have been cheaper than a stock market crash and a lock down.

That's tip of the iceberg though. The disease is new. We know that people who have it and recover suffer lung damage. We don't know what that does in the long term. We know that people recover but we don't know if they are then immune or susceptible to catching the disease again.

We also don't know what the impact of a disunited approach might be. Suppose we have a country where some areas, we could call them red states, are provided with lots of equipment while other areas, call them blue states, get inadequate supplies. Obviously lots of blue state people die but, later on, people will mingle. Blue state survivors will go to red states (not Indiana, no one goes there, but other ones). Does that set up a second and more forceful wave of disease in the manner of the Spanish Flu?

Too little is known, or can be known, to say whether or not the shut down was worth the cost. It's the price of your loyal but aging dog, innit? Emotionally no price is too high but when it comes to having to sell the Range Rover, maybe not so much.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian

From what I have been able to learn, those that become infected fall into one of 4 categories: those that don't know they have it.; those that exhibit minor symptoms that they don't attribute to C19; those that have symptoms that they realise is C19 and from which they make a full and relatively quick recovery; those that have severe symptoms from which they die.

The first 3 categories are such that, it would appear, sensible people would not concern themselves with. The last category, it would appear, has very few survivors. Clearly, we wish to avoid as many falling into this category as possible and, I would argue, those that are susceptible to being in that category should take whatever action they can to self isolate to limit their exposure (the elderly, those with underlying health conditions).

If I am correct ( and I appreciate I may not be due to the massive lack of data available to non medics) one has to argue that the benefit to society of the economic consequences of shutting life down is worth the benefit that will result. The longer this goes on for, and the more that suffer from the economic fallout, the more difficult it will become to justify the effects of 5he situation and the more difficult it will become to keep peolple on side.

Originally Posted by jimf

Looks like a 50% survival rate in UK intensive care so far.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...e_iOSApp_Other

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian

Thanks. That is encouraging.

Originally Posted by jimf

It will be interesting to see the extent to which opinion turns against China on this.

Originally Posted by caretaker

I've been a fan of John Prine since he first started out, and he's in critical condition with covid-19.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/singer...mily-1.4873506

Originally Posted by Jsmth321

Originally Posted by jimf

Something not to try...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ralian-doctor/